<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2023 (11) TMI 897 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446006</link>
    <description>A Special Economic Zone unit&#039;s liability to service tax on GTA services used for movement of goods from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area turned on the SEZ exemption framework and Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal held that the unit was only a recipient of GTA services and, if liability arose, it would be under reverse charge, not as provider of the service. It further held that Section 26 of the SEZ Act exempts SEZ units from taxes and duties, and Section 51 gives that regime overriding effect, so exemption could not be denied merely because the services were availed outside the SEZ when they related to authorised operations. The demand, interest, and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2023 07:41:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732785" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 897 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446006</link>
      <description>A Special Economic Zone unit&#039;s liability to service tax on GTA services used for movement of goods from the SEZ to the Domestic Tariff Area turned on the SEZ exemption framework and Notification No. 4/2004-ST. The Tribunal held that the unit was only a recipient of GTA services and, if liability arose, it would be under reverse charge, not as provider of the service. It further held that Section 26 of the SEZ Act exempts SEZ units from taxes and duties, and Section 51 gives that regime overriding effect, so exemption could not be denied merely because the services were availed outside the SEZ when they related to authorised operations. The demand, interest, and penalties were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446006</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>